Through the judgments Digital Rights Ireland and Tele2 Sverige, the CJEU emphasised the power of the CFR (in particular arts 7, 8, 52) through the fundamental right of data protection and general principles of law such as the principle of proportionality and legal certainty. Article 52 CFR represents the essence of justification. In the spirit of article 52(3) and (4) CFR it becomes evident that the CJEU, the ECtHR and the German Constitutional Court go in the same direction. The CJEU was brave enough to deliver a scathing verdict on data retention. More strongly than the German CC, the CJEU safeguards data protection. Hence, the decisions of the CJEU were described as milestone decisions and the CJEU as a Court of fundamental rights. On the other hand, the CJEU focused all its power on proportionality expressed through the element of strict necessity. It is astonishing that the Court does not use the existing methodology on proportionality to strengthen legal discipline and confidence. Although proportionality may be assessed differently in single legal systems and cultures, the broad constitutionalisation and application of proportionality in jurisdiction proves the power of this general principle of law. The exploration of this principle is rather challenging, but most beneficial for the future application of primary law

中文翻译：

---

CJEU进行数据保护的严格必要性测试：在安全问题之中，应对新数字时代开始时面临的挑战的比例测试

通过对“爱尔兰数字权利”和“ Tele2 Sverige”的判决，欧洲法院通过数据保护的基本权利和一般法律原则（如相称原则和法律确定性原则）强调了联邦法规的力量（特别是第7、8、52条）。CFR第52条代表了辩护的实质。按照《联邦法规》第52条第3款和第（4）款的精神，显然，欧洲法院，欧洲人权法院和德国宪法法院朝着同一方向发展。CJEU非常勇敢地对数据保留做出严厉的裁决。CJEU比德国CC更强大，可以保护数据保护。因此，欧洲法院的判决被描述为里程碑式判决，欧洲法院的判决被称为基本权利法院。另一方面，欧洲法院将所有权力集中在通过严格必要性要素表达的相称性上。令人惊讶的是，法院没有使用有关比例的现有方法来加强法律纪律和信心。尽管在单个法律体系和文化中对比例的评价可能不同，但是在管辖范围内比例主义的广泛宪法化和适用证明了这一一般法律原则的力量。对这一原则的探索颇具挑战性，但对于将来适用基本法最有利 管辖权中广泛的宪法化和相称性的适用证明了这一一般法律原则的力量。对这一原则的探索颇具挑战性，但对于将来适用基本法最有利 管辖权中广泛的宪法化和相称性的适用证明了这一一般法律原则的力量。对这一原则的探索颇具挑战性，但对于将来适用基本法最有利